Date: Mon, 20 Jun 2005 11:13:31 +0200 From: Michal Vanco <vanco@satro.sk> To: freebsd-net@freebsd.org Cc: Gleb Smirnoff <glebius@freebsd.org>, freebsd-stable@freebsd.org, Sten Daniel =?iso-8859-1?q?S=F8rsdal?= <lists@wm-access.no> Subject: Re: Routes not deleted after link down Message-ID: <200506201113.34307.vanco@satro.sk> In-Reply-To: <42B5CD89.6070509@wm-access.no> References: <51688.147.175.8.5.1119105461.squirrel@webmail.satronet.sk> <20050619082944.GA11972@cell.sick.ru> <42B5CD89.6070509@wm-access.no>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
[-- Attachment #1 --] On Sunday 19 June 2005 21:54, Sten Daniel Sørsdal wrote: > Gleb Smirnoff wrote: > > My vote is that we should implement this functionality and make it > > switchable via sysctl. I'd leave the default as is. > > > > What is opinion of other networkers? > > How about also adding a sysctl for setting a delay time between event > and disabling of the route? Then even people with roaming wlan cards can > benefit. > Also it is in my opinion that the route be disabled (moved to a passive > route table maybe?) and not deleted. This is what I meant initially. Marking route passive is better than just deleting it and it'll be also faster to recall the route back in case of link up. [-- Attachment #2 --] -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.1 (GNU/Linux) iD8DBQBCtoi+2/VqJwUsLAMRAkV7AJ9k4+qUBriivsLdaNcjSo3RHtA3LQCgmgEG hm+IhTO2UeeDrVeR6401neE= =s+kG -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?200506201113.34307.vanco>